It seems as though ghosts aren’t the only things instilling fear in Simi Valley residents this Halloween.
According to The Huffington Post, “Simi Valley, California, cracked down on sex offenders’ Halloween celebration last month, passing a law prohibiting those convicted of sex crimes from decorating for the holiday or passing out candy at their homes.”
In addition, they are required to post signs on their front door that read: “No candy or treats at this residence.”
Dissenters are criticizing the controversial law as “a breach of First Amendment rights” for registered sex offenders and their families.
The city, which is reportedly home to 119 registered sex offenders, created the law to protect children after public outcry from residents.
“This law was generated by citizens asking the City Council to do something,” Simi Valley councilman and LAPD officer Mike Judge told NBC Los Angeles. “And it didn’t seem unreasonable for the City Council to take it up.”
Lawyer Janice Bellucci is one of the law’s harshest critics, telling NBC that this type of sanctioning imposes “forced speech.”
“It’s similar to Jews in Nazi Germany who had to wear the yellow star on their clothing,” said Bellucci.
My issue here is that Bellucci is being completely outlandish in her statements.
The only people who are forced to abide by this law are registered sex offenders or those who have been convicted of a crime against children.
Although I do feel the decoration prohibition is going a bit far, I understand the intentions of those legislating such laws.
Those in opposition need to ask themselves: “Would I want my child taking candy from someone who has harmed a child in the past?”
This law doesn’t prohibit an offender’s family from going trick-or-treating in Simi Valley, it prohibits them only from passing out the candy.
At the same time, I see where the controversy lies. It’s no secret that harsher sanctions and alienation rarely help offenders of any crime.
All of these registered offenders can be found on the state’s Megan’s Law website, which includes their addresses and the crimes committed. If parents wanted to be proactive, they could print off their nearby offenders and avoid the houses altogether.
Back home, I live next door to a sex offender who committed a violent, sexual crime against a 5-year-old.
With so many little children in my neighborhood, of course I feel the constant fear for their well-being and myself.
But because there’s easy to access that information, I am able to educate myself and avoid interaction with offenders in my neighborhood.
And since the majority of children go trick-or-treating with their parents, I doubt the offender’s Halloween decorations would matter much in terms of “attracting children.”
If there is a certain house a parent doesn’t feel comfortable with, they can always tell the child “no, not this house.”
I support the law’s intentions, but there must be a better way to meet in the middle — a way in which the rights of citizens are not compromised while the well-being of children is thoroughly considered.
Casey Compernolle is a junior studying journalism and a columnist for The Post. Email her at cc150708@ohiou.edu.
